Full text

What's wrong with an antenna pole that transmits radio signal? What's wrong with an underground receiver? The issue here isn't if these technologies will be abused. The issue is whether or not it's sound engineering. A signal is a signal; there is nothing to be taken advantage of or misused at all. In communities, a private signal may be simply disguised. In secret government transmissions, the signal may be encrypted and transmitted that way. If a message is intercepted, that cannot be blamed by the technology or the interceptor. It's the broadcaster who should have been more thoughtful.

A pole which transmits radio signal will be disguised to observers. The signal, either directional, bi-directional, or omni-directional (depending on the internal structure of the pole) will send waves which reach much further than traditional broadcasts. A telephone pole which doubles as a radio transmitter is ideal for transmissions in areas with low signal. It would be a perfect fit for local communities.

Underground receivers have been under-utilized since they were first introduced as radio telescopes. Instead of aiming for the sky, an underground receiver can actually receive transmissions from across the globe, passing through the earth and receiving transmissions from the other side. Excellent for trans-continental government broadcasts.

Both of these ideas have been overlooked by first-world countries. Their governments don't trust radio technology, and claim that any deviations from standard use will cause disruption. Yet radio is and always will be radio. There is nothing new about the technology. The distrust that governments carry in their broadcasting is infectious and harmful to our world.. Only when the antenna is freed, may we discover beings of light in-between radio stations.